A Plumber with Words: Seeking Constitutional Responsibility and an End to the Little Sisters Problem

Authors

Alison M. Latimer
Benjamin L. Berger, Osgoode Hall Law School of York University

Abstract

In this article, written in tribute to and memory of Joseph A. Arvay, the authors explore and address the “Little Sisters problem”: the tracing of endemic Charter wrongs to the “maladministration” of a law, rather than holding the law itself — and, with it, the legislator — responsible. This doctrinal move, which crystallized in the first Little Sisters case, is a structural impediment to Charter justice not only because it raises serious access to justice concerns, but because it badly disrupts and distorts lines of constitutional accountability. Having first defined the Little Sisters problem and its effects, the paper demonstrates how this problem can arise by reference to the solitary confinement litigation in BC, in which Joe was set to tackle this issue that so concerned him. Ultimately, the authors offer an argument that a sensitive reading of the Court’s decision in R. v. Boudreault suggests a significant circumscription of the Little Sisters problem, and that future courts should treat demonstrated and systemic rights-violative harms that arise from the maladministration of a statute as “latent constitutional defects” in the legislation itself, warranting a s. 52 remedy. Only this reading makes sense of the Boudreault decision, and only this reading adequately honours access to Charter justice, democratic accountability, and the rule of law.

Citation Information

Latimer, Alison M. and Berger, Benjamin L.. "A Plumber with Words: Seeking Constitutional Responsibility and an End to the Little Sisters Problem." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 104. (2022).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1430
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol104/iss1/8

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

1 Alison M. Latimer, Q.C., is a litigator in Vancouver, B.C. This article draws on legal arguments developed with Joe in British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2018] B.C.J. No. 53, 2018 BCSC 62 (B.C.S.C.) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.), litigation in which Alison also appeared as counsel.

2 Benjamin L. Berger is Professor and York Research Chair in Pluralism and Public Law at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. Both authors wish to thank Matthew Traister (Osgoode, JD) for his superb research and editorial assistance in the preparation of this article. This article is written with deep love and gratitude for Joseph J. Arvay, OC, OBC, QC, who was a cherished friend and mentor to us both.

3 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, ss. 1, 7, 15, 24 [hereinafter "the Charter"].

4 This is true for academics, as much as it is for practitioners, as one of us has argued. See Benjamin L. Berger, Law's Religion: Religious Difference and the Claims of Constitutionalism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015), at 35-40.

5 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72, 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.).

6 Both advance costs and special costs were of particular concern to Joe: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] S.C.J. No. 76, 2003 SCC 71 (S.C.C.); Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), [2007] S.C.J. No. 2, 2007 SCC 2 (S.C.C.); R. v. Caron, [2011] S.C.J. No. 5, 2011 SCC 5 (S.C.C.); Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 5, at paras. 133-146, 2015 SCC 5 (S.C.C.).

7 Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, [2012] S.C.J. No. 45, 2012 SCC 45 (S.C.C.).

8 Some courts have chosen not to declare a constitutional wrong even when one has been proven after a lengthy and contested trial. This is the outcome that obtained after the appeal in the solitary litigation: British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at paras. 213, 228, 269, 272, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.). We view this outcome as a stark example of misplaced judicial restraint, a topic one of us has written about elsewhere. See Alison M. Latimer, "Constitutional Conversations" (2019) 88 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 231 (2d). It is notable that the exercise of such a discretion to refuse a remedy is not available under s. 52. However, a full exploration of the issue of misplaced judicial restraint as it manifested in the solitary case is beyond the scope of this article.

9 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, 2000 SCC 69 [hereinafter "Little Sisters 1"].

10 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Boudreault"].

11 Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52(1), being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11; R. v. Ferguson, [2008] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 59, 2008 SCC 6 (S.C.C.).

12 R. v. Ferguson, [2008] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 59, 2008 SCC 6 (S.C.C.).

13 R. v. Ferguson, [2008] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 35, 2008 SCC 6 (S.C.C.).

14 There are exceptions. For example, even in cases where legislation is unconstitutional courts often suspend declarations of invalidity. The jurisprudence allows the court to grant a s. 24(1) remedy in connection with a s. 52(1) declaration of invalidity where s. 24(1) relief is necessary to provide the claimant with an effective remedy. One such case was Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] B.C.J. No. 1196, 2012 BCSC 886 (B.C.S.C.). This case established a constitutional right to physician assisted death. In that case the declaration of invalidity was suspended following the trial and Joe persuaded the trial judge to grant an individual exemption to Gloria Taylor so that she could access a physician-assisted death during the period of time when the declaration of invalidity was suspended (see paras. 1414-1415). Joe arguably persuaded the Supreme Court of Canada to do the same thing for a broader group of people. See Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] S.C.J. No. 4, at paras. 5-6, 2016 SCC 4 (S.C.C.); although the Court did not make clear that the remedy was granted pursuant to s. 24(1).

15 R. v. Ferguson, [2008] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 60, 2008 SCC 6 (S.C.C.).

16 Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), ss. 58, 71, 152(3).

17 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

18 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 163(8).

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02167530

19 R. v. Butler, [1992] S.C.J. No. 15, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.2307/2931253

20 R. v. Butler, [1992] S.C.J. No. 15, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452, at 489, 509-510 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1177/039139889201500901

21 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at para. 25, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

22 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1996] B.C.J. No. 71, at paras. 100, 250 131 D.L.R. (4th) 486 (B.C.S.C.).

23 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at paras. 183, 185, 190, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

24 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at paras. 18, 28, 37-38, 43-44, 70-72, 127-129, 131, 133, 135, 154, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

25 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at para. 108, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

26 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at para. 204, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added].

27 R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] S.C.J. No. 1, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Morgentaler"].

28 Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] S.C.J. No. 36, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03338508

29 R. v. Bain, [1992] S.C.J. No. 3, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91 (S.C.C.).

30 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at paras. 205-213, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

31 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at paras. 127-131, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

32 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at para. 205, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

33 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at para. 133, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

34 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at paras. 134-139, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

35 Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, at para. 158, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.).

36 Never daunted, Joe geared up to pursue the issue once more but this time hoped to secure advanced costs for his troubles. The issue of advanced costs went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, resulting in Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), [2007] S.C.J. No. 2, 2007 SCC 2 (S.C.C.). This case was almost the death knell for the advanced costs jurisprudence. The issue of advance costs is an interesting one close to Joe's heart, but that is beyond the scope of this article. It is an issue that was the focus of submissions at the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2021. At the time of writing, judgment is reserved. See Germaine Anderson on her own behalf and on behalf of all other Beaver Lake Cree Nation beneficiaries of Treaty No. 6 and Beaver Lake Cree Nation v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta, 2021 CanLII 2827 (S.C.C.).

37 For helpful discussions of Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] S.C.J. No. 66, 2000 SCC 69 (S.C.C.) and some of the constitutional and access to justice issues it generated, see e.g., Kent Roach, "Enforcement of the Charter - Subsections 24(1) and 52(1)" (2013) 62 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. (2d) 473; Bruce Ryder, "The Little Sisters Case, Administrative Censorship, and Obscenity Law" (2001) 39:1 Osgoode Hall L.J. 207. See also generally Carissima Mathen, "Access to Charter Justice and the Rule of Law" (2008-2009) 25 Nat'l J. Const. L. 191. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.1486

38 British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] S.C.J. No. 76, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214, at 230 (S.C.C.). See also British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Christie, [2007[ S.C.J. No. 21, at para. 23, 2007 SCC 21 (S.C.C.); R. v. Prosper, [1994] S.C.J. No. 72, at para. 102, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236 (S.C.C.).

39 Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, [2010] S.C.J. No. 3, at para. 37, 2010 SCC 3 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Khadr"].

40 Joe and Alison contributed a chapter about the solitary confinement case that describes the trial in more detail. See Joseph J. Arvay & Alison M. Latimer, "Solitary Confinement in Canada" in Jules Lobel & Peter Scharff Smith, eds, Solitary Confinement: Effects, Practices, and Pathways Towards Reform (Oxford Scholarship Online, 2019), at 335. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190947927.003.0020

41 Parallel litigation in Ontario was similarly brought to an end. See Canadian Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] O.J. No. 1537, 2019 ONCA 243 (Ont. C.A.). For a discussion of the solitary confinement litigation, and the broader institutional and constitutional issues it raised and that the practice continues to raise, see e.g., Lisa Kerr, "The End Stage of Solitary Confinement" (2019) 55 C.R. (7th) 382, and the literature referenced therein.

42 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2018] B.C.J. No. 53, at paras. 247-250, 264-273, 277-288, 307-310, 328, 2018 BCSC 62 (B.C.S.C.).

43 A term defined in the version of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 that applied at the time of the litigation.

44 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2018] B.C.J. No. 53, at paras. 64, 466-470, 484-487, 493-497, 2018 BCSC 62 (B.C.S.C.).

45 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2018] B.C.J. No. 53, at paras. 23-48, 2018 BCSC 62 (B.C.S.C.).

46 Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 31-33, 37.

47 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2018] B.C.J. No. 53, at paras. 609-610, 2018 BCSC 62 (B.C.S.C.).

48 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 167, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

49 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 198, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

50 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 210, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

51 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

52 Public interest standing was a topic close to Joe's heart. Nine short years ago he took the issue of public interest standing all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, [2012] S.C.J. No. 45, 2012 SCC 45 (S.C.C.). While that case clarified the law of public interest standing in constitutional cases when the constitutional validity of a law is a stake, it did not address what implications, if any, a grant of public interest standing has on the availability of s. 24(1) relief. As noted here, that issue was squarely raised in the solitary confinement case; however, a discussion of that issue is beyond the scope of this article. Instead, we focus attention on the argument that the remedies sought were properly granted under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The issue of public interest standing is another one that is again before the court. See Attorney General of British Columbia v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2021 CanLII 24821 (S.C.C.).

53 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 213, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

54 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 214, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

55 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 272, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

56 Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, [2010] S.C.J. No. 3, 2010 SCC 3 (S.C.C.).

57 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 213, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

58 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 220, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

59 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 220, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

60 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 231, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

61 British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1151, at para. 228, 2019 BCCA 228 (B.C.C.A.).

62 (1997) 35:1 Osgoode Hall L.J. 75.

63 Peter M. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton & Wade K. Wright, "Charter Dialogue Revisited - or Much Ado About Metaphors" (2007) 45:1 Osgoode Hall L.J. 1, at 4, 7. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.1254

64 Attorney General of Canada v. British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn., 2020 CanLII 10501 (S.C.C.).

65 See e.g., Letter from Prime Minister Trudeau to Minister Wilson-Raybould (November 12, 2015), online: https://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-justice-and-attorney-general-canada-mandate-letter .

66 That said, the decision of the majority to give immediate effect to the declaration of invalidity was also notable and of import beyond the s. 12 frame.

67 See Lisa Kerr & Benjamin L. Berger, "Methods and Severity: The Two Tracks of Section 12" (2020) 94 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. (2d) 235. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1382

68 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 94, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/wilm.10663

69 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 65, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.7560/317587-058

70 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 152, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.) [emphasis in original].

71 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 69, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/rwm3.20652

72 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 71, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41906-018-0598-2

73 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 72, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2018.04.015

74 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 73, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/rwm3.20748

75 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 154, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.).

76 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 149, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.).

77 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 74, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s35144-018-0065-2

78 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 74, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.).

79 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 75, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1080/21646821.2018.1440121

80 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, at para. 166, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25908

81 Sujit Choudhry & Kent Roach, "Racial and Ethnic Profiling: Statutory Discretion, Constitutional Remedies, and Democratic Accountability" (2003) 41:1 Osgoode Hall L.J. 1. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.1429